Cheney Shoots Donor in Hunting Accident - Page 5 - Tilted Forum Project Discussion Community

pan6467 · 02-16-2006, 04:19 PM

I see so because 35 yrs ago someone got drunk and had an accident because drunk driving laws and the police at that time gave the man a slapped wrist (and it was wrong), whatever happened with Cheney is ok.

(BTW Kennedy wasn't a VP either....)

I just don't see any logic there. All I see is partisan blindness.

I give up.... Cheney is fucking above the law, he can go out shoot a man and the GOP can say "it was his fault he didn't tell me he was in my line of fire.... it wasn't Cheney's responsibility to make sure his line of fire was clear."

What's next? What do the GOP want to clear their next guy for using events that happened 35 yrs ago as an excuse to give that blank check for?

clavus · 02-16-2006, 04:41 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by kutulu

Bringing up TK is retarded. .

Bringing up TK is DEVELOPMENTALLY DISABLED.

Sheesh. Haven't we been through this already?

billege · 02-16-2006, 04:42 PM

The thread is pretty much off course. Seriously, it is.

Anyone want to try to bring it back to somthing discussable?

Like, this maybe:

For me, I'm annoyed at how it was handled. Regardless of what any other politician has done, at any time, I have a view of how somthing like this should be handled.

My view:

Cheney shoots the guy. Obviously, the Service is there, and the medics are there. They start helping the guy who has been shot.
The guy goes to the hospital for care.
The local authorities are notified. The guy's family is notified.
The family is brought to the hospital to be with the 78 year old guy who's got pellets in his face and chest.

Cheney makes a call to Bush up in DC. (This happens right after Cheney's made sure the guy's in the hospital okay and the family is informed and has had a chance to talk to him personally.)
He says somthing like:
"Hey dubya, I screwed up while hunting and shot Harry. Yeah...I know...it was stupid....I feel like absolute shite about it...yeah he's in the hospital...yeah the family knows....yeah he's being taken care of.
Man I feel awful. I want to go on TV and get this right out to the public. Let's make sure this is out there, and everyone knows. Yeah....yeah it's thier business, I think so too. Yeah, I am the VP of the US of A, the public totally should know if I shoot a guy. Yes sir, I'll get on the news with this right away."

Then Cheney has a press conference and says "Good evening America, I have to tell you somthing I personally did that was really stupid. I shot a guy while hunting. It was totally my fault, and I feel wretched about it. The gentleman in question is a buddy of mine, Harry, and he's 78 years old. I can't tell you how awful I feel about this. I'd like to ask all of America to put Harry in your hearts and prayers. He's doing okay, and for a gunshot wound it's not nearly as bad as it could have been. I'm sorry I was responsible for such an unfortunate event, and I'll be speaking more about this later. We'll have a Q&A session in three hours."

Now that, that'd have been classy.

Why can't we have that kind of honesty and dialogue with our elected leaders?

clavus · 02-16-2006, 04:43 PM

speaking of TK...

pan6467 · 02-16-2006, 06:48 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by billege

The thread is pretty much off course. Seriously, it is.

Anyone want to try to bring it back to somthing discussable?

Like, this maybe:

For me, I'm annoyed at how it was handled. Regardless of what any other politician has done, at any time, I have a view of how somthing like this should be handled.

My view:

Cheney shoots the guy. Obviously, the Service is there, and the medics are there. They start helping the guy who has been shot.
The guy goes to the hospital for care.
The local authorities are notified. The guy's family is notified.
The family is brought to the hospital to be with the 78 year old guy who's got pellets in his face and chest.

Cheney makes a call to Bush up in DC. (This happens right after Cheney's made sure the guy's in the hospital okay and the family is informed and has had a chance to talk to him personally.)
He says somthing like:
"Hey dubya, I screwed up while hunting and shot Harry. Yeah...I know...it was stupid....I feel like absolute shite about it...yeah he's in the hospital...yeah the family knows....yeah he's being taken care of.
Man I feel awful. I want to go on TV and get this right out to the public. Let's make sure this is out there, and everyone knows. Yeah....yeah it's thier business, I think so too. Yeah, I am the VP of the US of A, the public totally should know if I shoot a guy. Yes sir, I'll get on the news with this right away."

Then Cheney has a press conference and says "Good evening America, I have to tell you somthing I personally did that was really stupid. I shot a guy while hunting. It was totally my fault, and I feel wretched about it. The gentleman in question is a buddy of mine, Harry, and he's 78 years old. I can't tell you how awful I feel about this. I'd like to ask all of America to put Harry in your hearts and prayers. He's doing okay, and for a gunshot wound it's not nearly as bad as it could have been. I'm sorry I was responsible for such an unfortunate event, and I'll be speaking more about this later. We'll have a Q&A session in three hours."

Now that, that'd have been classy.

Why can't we have that kind of honesty and dialogue with our elected leaders?

Yes that would have been classy, but as long as you have partisan hatred and people standing up for someone no matter what he does and accuses the other side of a witch hunt no matter what the truth is.... you'll have politicians playing games and doing whatever they damn well please, because they know the partisan card is better than a get out of jail free card.

As demonstrated here, these people will bring up the past, talk about 35 years ago, blame the press for making it bigger than it is..... Jesus fucking Christ the VP shot a 78 yr. old man accidentally or not... HE SHOT A MAN IN THE CHEST FACE AND NECK AND IS GETTING OFF SCOT FREE.... NO CONSEQUENCES WHATSOEVER.

So the jokes are told to make it less serious, the partisans come out and make excuses and Cheney gets off.

This is one of the saddest and most pathetic events in our governments history.

How sad partisanship comes before country and justice.

msh58 · 02-16-2006, 09:33 PM

just wanted to say hi.

ran out of twisted shotgun cheney jokes.

Rekna · 02-17-2006, 06:41 AM

I've been holding out posting in this thread but now i'm gong to post how I feel.

Accidents happen and when an accident happens that does not involve neglegence the person who commited the accident does not deserve nor usually get punishment. However, there is an investigation into the accident to make sure no neglegence occured. Has this investegation happened? We know Cheney had a beer at lunch, maybe he had more than one. If he would have talked to the officers right away we would know if this was a problem or not. But him refusing to talk to them for 14 hours raises suspicion that perhaps he was a bit tipsy. But this is not what irks me. What pisses me off is how the story is being changed constantly. First it was a few pelets hit him from a ways away, then it was well he got hit in the face from a ways away, now it is well he took almost every pelet to the face meaning he wasn't a long ways away and instead was up close. Why don't they come out and tell the truth right away? Why spin the story and make up lies? If it is an accident nothing will happen the only reason to lie and cover things up is if you are guilty of something. What is Cheney trying to hide?

asaris · 02-17-2006, 09:25 AM

Even if there is negligence involved (and it seems like there probably is), there needs to be a much higher level of negligence for it to be a criminal. Now, I dislike the Devil...er...Cheney as much as the next guy, but I just don't think what he did was criminal. Accidents happen.

samcol · 02-17-2006, 12:10 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by asaris

Even if there is negligence involved (and it seems like there probably is), there needs to be a much higher level of negligence for it to be a criminal. Now, I dislike the Devil...er...Cheney as much as the next guy, but I just don't think what he did was criminal. Accidents happen.

What about making law enforcement wait 14 hours after admitting to having a beer that day as well as witnesses saying there was beer at the picnic? Is that an accident to? When I first heard the story I figured 'oh well an accident,' but making law enforcement wait that long is just weird.

I agree with Rekna, covering things up sure makes things look suspicious, otherwise I would give him total benefit of the doubt and leave it at that.

On a side note, would the possibility of him being on half a dozen heart meds that say 'don't operate machinery' make him more negligent?

ziadel · 02-17-2006, 02:25 PM

I havent read all of this, so I'll just chime in with my thoughts.

Cheney pepperd some guy with bird-shot, and got away scott-free.

Yeppers, it's an accident, and in this case wasn't really a very serious one.

In my area alone this year, three hunters were shot by other hunters, with rifles. No one was arrested because, yeppers, say it with me now, it was an accident.

maximusveritas · 02-17-2006, 04:24 PM

Actually, there were just 30 reported hunting accidents in Texas all last year. So it's pretty uncommon to begin with and when you throw in the fact that he is the Vice President of the United States and has admitted to drinking beer shortly before the accident and that he botched the handling of it afterward (to put it lightly), it's a pretty big story. Is it very important in the grand scheme of things? No, but neither is 99% of what the media normally reports on.

Gatorade Frost · 02-17-2006, 05:10 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by maximusveritas

Actually, there were just 30 reported hunting accidents in Texas all last year. So it's pretty uncommon to begin with and when you throw in the fact that he is the Vice President of the United States and has admitted to drinking beer shortly before the accident and that he botched the handling of it afterward (to put it lightly), it's a pretty big story.

I thought he had one drink a few hours before?

ObieX · 02-17-2006, 10:55 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Gatorade Frost

I thought he had one drink a few hours before?

Thats what *he* says. Other witnesses say he had a "few" beers. And seeing as how he put off any possibility of a sobriety test for over 14 hours we'll never know how drunk he was. Also that point about the heart meds is a good one. just how well do heart meds even mix with alcohol anyway? The mix of the two could ahve fucked him up bigtime. But as i said we'll never know cuz there was a cover-up.

Poppinjay · 02-18-2006, 03:47 AM

It's kind of hard to believe that multiple DUI Cheney had one beer.

Superbelt · 02-18-2006, 04:29 PM

It should also be pointed out:
This guy is on a cocktail of drugs, some of which (like aspirin) both heighten the drunken state and lengthen it. It very well could have been two beers that could impair for 4 hours.
And I KNOW his 1.8 million dollar team of doctors that follow him around know this.

It's very irresponsible and suspicious of both him and the police to have completely foregone a blood test.

And I won't be satisfied that Cheney was sober until Wittington releases his bloodwork from the incident and it comes up negative.
(And I know that one person having alcohol in their system doesn't mean another does, but considering the circumstances and deception involved, It's now become very relevant).

stevo · 02-20-2006, 06:31 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rekna

But him refusing to talk to them for 14 hours raises suspicion that perhaps he was a bit tipsy.

Quote:

Originally Posted by samcol

What about making law enforcement wait 14 hours after admitting to having a beer that day as well as witnesses saying there was beer at the picnic?

Quote:

Originally Posted by ObieX

And seeing as how he put off any possibility of a sobriety test for over 14 hours we'll never know how drunk he was.

It helps in a situation like this if you get the facts straight before you try to make a point.

http://www.thesmokinggun.com/archive...61cheney1.html

Quote:

Originally Posted by The Smoking Gun.com

...Along with San Miguel's report, investigators also released a two-page supplemental report prepared by Salinas, who learned of a "possible hunting accident" from Captain Charles Kirk around 5:30 PM Saturday. About ten minutes later, Salinas was called by a Secret Service agent who reported that the accident at the Armstrong Ranch "involved Vice-President Cheney." Salinas then contacted Ramiro Medellin, a former Kenedy County sheriff who works at the 50,000-acre ranch. Medellin, Salinas reported, told him, "This in fact is an accident," adding that he had spoken with "some of the people in the hunting party who were eyewitnesses and that they all said it was definitely a hunting accident." After speaking with Medellin, Salinas apparently believed that there was no need for further investigation that night. He then contacted San Miguel and directed his deputy to arrive at the Armstrong Ranch the following morning at 8 AM to interview Cheney and other witnesses.

p.s. Salinas is the Sheriff of Kennedy County

And cheney refused the police to interview him for 14 hours where? Smell ripe wiht cover-up. Maybe one day the media will focus on the real news. maybe not.

roachboy · 02-20-2006, 07:26 AM

a reasonable overview of this absurd little farce brought to you courtesy of those fine exemplars of personal responsibility in the bush administration:

Quote:

How to shoot yourself in the foot

When Dick Cheney shot his friend it was a bizarre accident. But his handling of the event has wounded the Bush administration and infuriated the press

Suzanne Goldenberg in Washington
Monday February 20, 2006
The Guardian

When the second most powerful man in America shoots his friend in the face, is it news? Apparently not to vice-president Dick Cheney, who waited 18 hours before disclosing to the public that he had sprayed his hunting companion, Harry Whittington, a 78-year-old Texas lawyer, with as many as 200 pieces of bird shot.

The extraordinary nature of the incident, and Cheney's initial refusal to own up to it, dominated newspaper headlines and late-night television in America last week. What started as a bizarre accident became an emblem of Cheney's disdain for the press, White House secrecy and, ultimately, a metaphor for the failures of the Bush administration.

Media analysts say Cheney left a trail of mistakes. First, he delayed the release of information. He then bypassed the ferociously proprietorial White House press corps, asking his hostess at the ranch to give the story to a contact on the local newspaper, the Corpus Christi Caller Times. Not until the morning after Whittington was shot did Cheney speak to the White House chief of staff, Andrew Card, complicating prospects for damage control.

When Whittington's condition worsened - a pellet lodged in his heart caused a mild heart attack - Cheney did not mention it to the White House press operation even though he was at the White House. The press secretary, Scott McClellan, who had been joking about the incident, looked uncaring and out of step.

When Cheney eventually broke his silence, he chose the sympathetic Fox News as the conduit for his story, but even that failed to halt the controversy, raising a whole set of questions. Was the vice-president drinking when he shot his friend? Why were there no witnesses from the private hunting party of 10 and Cheney's considerable Secret Service detail? And why did Cheney believe that he could keep his boss and the president out of the loop? Was the president unaware of other activities?

MediaGuardian asked White House insiders and PR professionals to give their insight into a week in which relations between the Bush administration and the US press took another serious hit.

Peter Baker
White House correspondent, Washington Post
The plain fact of it is that you don't have a vice-president shoot someone every day of the week. To say that out loud almost seems silly, but it is so unusual and so stark a story that almost inevitably it was going to become a huge media sensation and be picked apart and scrutinised and so forth.

Second, obviously a delay in putting it out always tends to raise suspicions in a case like this. Why was it delayed? Was there an ulterior motive? Was there an attempt at a cover-up? We don't really have much evidence of an attempt at a cover-up but you have to ask the question. The rule of thumb in Washington has been for a long time that when you have something you don't consider to be good news, you put it out as quickly as possible and as fully as you can to clear the air, and keep anyone from suspecting that there is something else out there. That wasn't done in this case. The addditional dynamic here is that Cheney historically has been a somewhat secretive figure who does not particularly play the media game, and who does not care much how he is viewed by the public. So this plays into the perception already out there that Cheney is someone who is outside the White House's ability to manage.

Dee Dee Myers
White House press secretary in Clinton administration
I like to think that I would have been notified by senior advisers of the White House. But Karl Rove (deputy White House chief of staff) didn't tell Scott McClellan (White House press secretary). The important thing is to gather as much information as possible about what happened in Texas. Establish a time line. Gather as much detail as you can about what happened. What time was the accident? What time did Whittington arrive at the hospital?

Say something about the victim's condition. Put out a chronology of what happened and a statement from the vice-president saying "Boy, I really feel horrible about this" and put it out as quickly as possible.

They made a huge story out of this, and there are a lot of layers now to what was an incident that was really unfortunate, and sort of provocative, but not much more than that. In the White House in which I worked, if vice-president Al Gore had done something, the president would have commissioned someone - the chief of staff probably - to get someone to handle it. If he had to, Clinton would have called the vice-president and said, "Look you have to cooperate."

Jim Brady
White House press secretary for first two months of Reagan administration. Shot in assassination attempt on the president
As White House press secretary (or press secretary to any public official) you serve two masters - your boss and the American people, and your conduit to the people is through the national press corps. Juggling the two can be difficult but that comes with the territory.

Getting the story out as quickly, thoroughly and honestly as possible is mandatory. Otherwise, you've failed both masters. There must be mutual trust with the press corps - without that you cannot serve either master well. The Cheney story (whether he liked it or not) was news - his press person or the White House press secretary should have been on top of the story from the beginning and ready to brief the press corps with all developing facts.

Editor, PR Week
The real problem here is what this incident has revealed about the inner workings of the White House. Hopefully, Harry Whittington will recover, but the recovery for the Bush and Cheney offices will take much longer.

A crisis at its worst will reveal the inadequacies of your internal organisation and that is exactly what has happened here. It revealed that there was no coordination between Cheney's office and Bush's White House office, which lends credence to the perception people already have that Cheney runs his own show, that his office does not collaborate with other White House officials, and that his office thought that it could contain and control this story. That put Bush's press secretary [Scott McClellan] into a very awkward position of publicly joking about this when he did not know the full status of the victim, which makes Bush look bad. And if you make your boss look bad, you are not doing your job.

http://media.guardian.co.uk/site/sto...713304,00.html

Ustwo · 02-20-2006, 07:32 AM

Hahaha is the left so devoid of substance that they want to make a big deal out of a minor hunting accident?

This would only be a fun story if it were a bipartisan hunting trip.

samcol · 02-22-2006, 08:48 AM

Quote:

Secret Service agents say Cheney was drunk when he shot lawyer

DOUG THOMPSON / Capitol Hill Blue | February 22 2006

A written report from Secret Service agents guarding Vice President Dick Cheney when he shot Texas lawyer Harry Whittington on a hunting outing two weeks ago says Cheney was "clearly inebriated" at the time of the shooting.

Agents observed several members of the hunting party, including the Vice President, consuming alcohol before and during the hunting expedition, the report notes, and Cheney exhibited "visible signs" of impairment, including slurred speech and erratic actions, the report said.

According to those who have read the report and talked with others present at the outing, Cheney was drunk when he gunned down his friend and the day-and-a-half delay in allowing Texas law enforcement officials on the ranch where the shooting occurred gave all members of the hunting party time to sober up.

We talked with a number of administration officials who are privy to inside information on the Vice President's shooting "accident" and all admit Secret Service agents and others saw Cheney consume far more than the "one beer' he claimed he drank at lunch earlier that day.

"This was a South Texas hunt," says one White House aide. "Of course there was drinking. There's always drinking. Lots of it."

Cheney has a long history of alcohol abuse, including two convictions of driving under the influence when he was younger. Doctors tell me that someone like Cheney, who is taking blood thinners because of his history of heart attacks, could get legally drunk now after consuming just one drink.

If Cheney was legally drunk at the time of the shooting, he could be guilty of a felony under Texas law and the shooting, ruled an accident by a compliant Kenedy County Sheriff, would be a prosecutable offense.

But we will never know for sure because the owners of the Armstrong Ranch, where the shooting occurred, barred the sheriff's department from the property on the day of the shooting and Kenedy County Sheriff Ramon Salinas III agreed to wait until the next day to send deputies in to talk to those involved.

Sheriff's Captain Charles Kirk says he went to the Armstrong Ranch immediately after the shooting was reported on Saturday, February 11 but both he and a game warden were not allowed on the 50,000-acre property. He called Salinas who told him to forget about it and return to the station.

"I told him don't worry about it. I'll make a call," Salinas said. The sheriff claims he called another deputy who moonlights at the Armstrong ranch, said he was told it was "just an accident" and made the decision to wait until Sunday to investigate.

"We've known these people for years. They are honest and wouldn't call us, telling us a lie," Salinas said.

Like all elected officials in Kenedy County, Salinas owes his job to the backing and financial support of Katherine Armstrong, owner of the ranch and the county's largest employer.

"The Armstrongs rule Kenedy County like a fiefdom," says a former employee.

Secret Service officials also took possession of all tests on Whittington's blood at the hospitals where he was treated for his wounds. When asked if a blood alcohol test had been performed on Whittington, the doctors who treated him at Christus Spohn Hospital Memorial in Corpus Christi or the hospital in Kingsville refused to answer. One admits privately he was ordered by the Secret Service to "never discuss the case with the press."

It's a sure bet that is a private doctor who treated the victim of Cheney's reckless and drunken actions can't talk to the public then the memo that shows the Vice President was drunk as a skunk will never see the light of day.

Hmm...From the people who brought you "it's just a goddamn piece of paper." Who knows if this story is true or not. Although I'll admit all the evidence, admissions, delayed reporting and investigation points to alcohol being the prime suspect in the shooting, however we'll probably never know.

Ustwo · 02-22-2006, 09:06 AM

samcol that might be a nice bit of information if you had a valid source for it.

No, prison planet and capital hill blue are anything but valid sources, I'd put more faith in the onion.

Charlatan · 02-22-2006, 09:17 AM

I agree. Interesting story and it sure rings true to those who suspect there is more to the story, BUT it needs a link.

Where did this story come from Samcol?

Bill O'Rights · 02-22-2006, 09:20 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ustwo

No, prison planet and capital hill blue are anything but valid sources, I'd put more faith in the onion.

What? The Onion's not a valid news source?

I'm crushed.

samcol · 02-22-2006, 09:20 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Charlatan

I agree. Interesting story and it sure rings true to those who suspect there is more to the story, BUT it needs a link.

Where did this story come from Samcol?

Capitol Hill Blue, the link is in the quoted title I belive.

Ustwo · 02-22-2006, 09:28 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Charlatan

I agree. Interesting story and it sure rings true to those who suspect there is more to the story, BUT it needs a link.

Where did this story come from Samcol?

It has a link and it came from where I said. http://www.prisonplanet.com/Prison Planet

Sample

Quote:

Congresswoman Says America Run By Criminal Syndicate
Cynthia McKinney, the only House Representative to stand up to the Bush White House crime syndicate, has gone further than ever before in her efforts to warn people about what the Neo-Cons' ultimate goals actually entail for freedom in America.

and

Capitol Hill Blue

Sample

Quote:

Bonnie Erbe, a columnist whose work I respect, writes elsewhere on this web site today that President George W. Bush should be impeached for his many high crimes against the Constitution of the United States.

At least now I know where some people GET this stuff they post.

samcol · 02-22-2006, 09:43 AM

I don't understand how speculating that alcohol was involved in this shooting is some kind of conspiracy theory. We have witnesses saying there was alcohol at the picnic, Cheney admits to drinking that day on fox news, Cheney has a history of alcohol abuse, the reporting and investigation of the shooting was convienetly delayed until the next day, the victim apologizes for getting shot by cheney, the whitehouse had no idea what was going on, and the police department was very apologetic as well. Not to mention you have a very experienced hunter making a very rookie mistake of breaking the line and nailing his friend at 30 yards.

Now we have a story come out that claims the secret service may have made a report indicating cheney was drunk.

EVERYTHING points to alcohol. The only conspiracy is Cheney keeping everything hush hush until the coast was clear.

Sorry Ustwo, nothing about this hunting accident indicates that it was just an ordinary hunting accident.

stevo · 02-22-2006, 09:50 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by samcol

Sorry Ustwo, nothing about this hunting accident indicates that it was just an ordinary hunting accident.

except for the police report.

samcol · 02-22-2006, 09:51 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by stevo

except for the police report.

The police report that allowed time for sobering up before declaring no alchol was involved.

stevo · 02-22-2006, 10:19 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by samcol

The police report that allowed time for sobering up before declaring no alchol was involved.

The same police report that doesn't alledge a delay by cheney or anyone else. The same police report where the Sheriff decided it wasn't necessary to question until the following morning.

Bill O'Rights · 02-22-2006, 10:53 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by stevo

The same police report where the Sheriff decided it wasn't necessary to question until the following morning.

Then the Sheiff was derelict. He either conciously chose to, or was coerced into, not doing his job. Although, it would be a tough spot to be in...no doubt.

Look...the simple fact is, that whether the Vice President was drunk or not, at the time that he accidently shot a hunting companion, is now rendered irrelevent. The reason, that I say that it's irrelevent, is because we now have the appearance of wrong doing; whether there was any or not. Richard Cheney is not that naive. He's been around the block long enough to know that it would be a major media circus. Therefore, why would he not try to eliminate as much speculation, about the incident, as he possibly could? It just doesn't add up.

It very well could be that there really is nothing more to this than what's on the surface. In fact, I hope that's the case. However...it smells as fishy as last weeks tuna cassarole. And that...could easily have been avoided.

Ustwo · 02-22-2006, 12:08 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bill O'Rights

Then the Sheiff was derelict. He either conciously chose to, or was coerced into, not doing his job. Although, it would be a tough spot to be in...no doubt.

Look...the simple fact is, that whether the Vice President was drunk or not, at the time that he accidently shot a hunting companion, is now rendered irrelevent. The reason, that I say that it's irrelevent, is because we now have the appearance of wrong doing; whether there was any or not. Richard Cheney is not that naive. He's been around the block long enough to know that it would be a major media circus. Therefore, why would he not try to eliminate as much speculation, about the incident, as he possibly could? It just doesn't add up.

Maybe cause he just shot his friend and was more worried about his well being than looking good to a leftist press who would cruicify him for it anyways.

As you said Cheney is not naive.

Bill O'Rights · 02-22-2006, 12:33 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ustwo

Maybe cause he just shot his friend and was more worried about his well being than looking good to a leftist press who would cruicify him for it anyways.

Possible. Very possible. I know that I would be. Yet...that still doesn't negate the fact that the sheriff was derelict. Drawing from my previous law enforcement experience, you always get statements, and gather evidence, as soon as possible. The purpose is to preclude colaboration of "stories", and to prevent contamination of evidence. The sooner that you get the "facts" pieced together, the sooner that a real picture of the actual events becomes clear. The longer you wait, the murkier that picture becomes. Of course...just watching any episode of CSI would tell you that.
Point is Sheriff Whatisname botched it. Bad.

I'm not implying that Cheney did anything wrong, other than experience a moment of carelessness, when he should have been his most carefull. It happens.
I am, however, implying-no, I'm outright saying-that it's the appearance of a cover up, that's going to leave a foul taste.

Ustwo · 02-22-2006, 01:07 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bill O'Rights

.that still doesn't negate the fact that the sheriff was derelict. Drawing from my previous law enforcement experience, you always get statements, and gather evidence, as soon as possible. The purpose is to preclude colaboration of "stories", and to prevent contamination of evidence. The sooner that you get the "facts" pieced together, the sooner that a real picture of the actual events becomes clear. The longer you wait, the murkier that picture becomes. Of course...just watching any episode of CSI would tell you that.
Point is Sheriff Whatisname botched it. Bad.

I agree and I have a lot of sympathy for the guy. You are joe Sherrif, you get a call that the Vice President of the United States of America just shot someone in a hunting accident. There are secret service all over the place, you are speaking to the V.P., he says it was an accident. Do you go into Colombo mode or do you say 'yes Sir, I understand Sir, no problem Sir.' He was out of his league and for that I don't really blame him for not following the book to the letter under the circumstances.

Quote:

I'm not implying that Cheney did anything wrong, other than experience a moment of carelessness, when he should have been his most carefull. It happens.
I am, however, implying-no, I'm outright saying-that it's the appearance of a cover up, that's going to leave a foul taste.

Its only the apperance of a cover up if you want to see one. Lots of people would love to see one, so they will pick apart every detail, including a Sherrif who should have gotten a statement right away but didn't and therefore it must be a coverup where they can put all their juicey bits of hersay wrap them lovingly in tinfoil and wear them on their head proudly. Some have cliamed already that Cheney was trying to kill the guy for some wacky nutjob reason or other.

Bill O'Rights · 02-22-2006, 01:36 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ustwo

I have a lot of sympathy for the guy. He was out of his league...

oh...no doubt. This guy didn't know whether to shit, or to cry. All he sees is the smoulding hulk of what used to be his career. I sure as hell wouldn't have wanted to be in his shoes.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ustwo

...and for that I don't really blame him for not following the book to the letter under the circumstances.

Here's where we part company. Sheriff Roscoe P. Coletrane had a job to do. Distastefull as it was, he had a job to do. He didn't do it. He failed.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ustwo

Its only the apperance of a cover up if you want to see one.

Here's where I think that you're wrong. I think that it already is the "appearance" of a cover up. It IS a true cover up when either you want to see one, or it's proven.

Ustwo · 02-22-2006, 02:40 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bill O'Rights

Here's where we part company. Sheriff Roscoe P. Coletrane had a job to do. Distastefull as it was, he had a job to do. He didn't do it. He failed.

You know I never even caught the guys name. Roscoe?

Anyone else having visions of the Dukes of Hazard?

Yes he fucked up, should we tar and feather Roscoe or should boss Hog deal with it? I don't think we part ways, I'm just seeing where Roscoe was intimidated by the circumstances. This isn't dealing with them pesky Duke boys, its the VP, I'm sure Roscoe looked at it, thought it could wait, and didn't expect the Left Wing version of the Spanish Inquisition. Shame on Roscoe. (That is his name?)

stevo · 02-22-2006, 02:50 PM

Roscoe's deputy is Captain Kirk

no, really.

Bill O'Rights · 02-22-2006, 05:06 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ustwo

Shame on Roscoe. (That is his name?)

No, Ustwo...I made that up.

I don't know what the hell his name is, either. I just used it as kind of a..."placeholder".

Marvelous Marv · 02-23-2006, 12:44 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by samcol

Hmm...From the people who brought you "it's just a goddamn piece of paper." Who knows if this story is true or not. Although I'll admit all the evidence, admissions, delayed reporting and investigation points to alcohol being the prime suspect in the shooting, however we'll probably never know.

The last time I used "quotes from people who have read the report" kinds of references, I got crucified for it.

Not to mention that any Secret Service agent who opened his mouth about it would be looking for a new job within hours.

Wasn't there some kind of legal brouhaha during the (yes, I'm saying it) Clinton administration regarding the Secret Service? Pertaining to making it illegal to force them to testify regarding what they had observed, because of the kind of atmosphere it would create for the president?

Bill O'Rights · 02-23-2006, 01:25 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Marvelous Marv

Wasn't there some kind of legal brouhaha during the (yes, I'm saying it) Clinton administration regarding the Secret Service? Pertaining to making it illegal to force them to testify regarding what they had observed, because of the kind of atmosphere it would create for the president?

Well...since you brought it up...yes, there was a legal brouhaha, regarding the Secret Service. And, justifiably so. That argument, I believe, is just as valid now as it was then. There are, however, other methods of investigation, that do not involve the U.S. Treasury Department.

02-16-2006, 04:19 PM	#161 (permalink)
pan6467 Lennonite Priest Location: Mansfield, Ohio USA	I see so because 35 yrs ago someone got drunk and had an accident because drunk driving laws and the police at that time gave the man a slapped wrist (and it was wrong), whatever happened with Cheney is ok. (BTW Kennedy wasn't a VP either....) I just don't see any logic there. All I see is partisan blindness. I give up.... Cheney is fucking above the law, he can go out shoot a man and the GOP can say "it was his fault he didn't tell me he was in my line of fire.... it wasn't Cheney's responsibility to make sure his line of fire was clear." What's next? What do the GOP want to clear their next guy for using events that happened 35 yrs ago as an excuse to give that blank check for? __________________ I just love people who use the excuse "I use/do this because I LOVE the feeling/joy/happiness it brings me" and expect you to be ok with that as you watch them destroy their life blindly following. My response is, "I like to put forks in an eletrical socket, just LOVE that feeling, can't ever get enough of it, so will you let me put this copper fork in that electric socket?" Last edited by pan6467; 02-16-2006 at 04:24 PM..

02-16-2006, 04:42 PM	#163 (permalink)
billege Watcher Location: Ohio	The thread is pretty much off course. Seriously, it is. Anyone want to try to bring it back to somthing discussable? Like, this maybe: For me, I'm annoyed at how it was handled. Regardless of what any other politician has done, at any time, I have a view of how somthing like this should be handled. My view: Cheney shoots the guy. Obviously, the Service is there, and the medics are there. They start helping the guy who has been shot. The guy goes to the hospital for care. The local authorities are notified. The guy's family is notified. The family is brought to the hospital to be with the 78 year old guy who's got pellets in his face and chest. Cheney makes a call to Bush up in DC. (This happens right after Cheney's made sure the guy's in the hospital okay and the family is informed and has had a chance to talk to him personally.) He says somthing like: "Hey dubya, I screwed up while hunting and shot Harry. Yeah...I know...it was stupid....I feel like absolute shite about it...yeah he's in the hospital...yeah the family knows....yeah he's being taken care of. Man I feel awful. I want to go on TV and get this right out to the public. Let's make sure this is out there, and everyone knows. Yeah....yeah it's thier business, I think so too. Yeah, I am the VP of the US of A, the public totally should know if I shoot a guy. Yes sir, I'll get on the news with this right away." Then Cheney has a press conference and says "Good evening America, I have to tell you somthing I personally did that was really stupid. I shot a guy while hunting. It was totally my fault, and I feel wretched about it. The gentleman in question is a buddy of mine, Harry, and he's 78 years old. I can't tell you how awful I feel about this. I'd like to ask all of America to put Harry in your hearts and prayers. He's doing okay, and for a gunshot wound it's not nearly as bad as it could have been. I'm sorry I was responsible for such an unfortunate event, and I'll be speaking more about this later. We'll have a Q&A session in three hours." Now that, that'd have been classy. Why can't we have that kind of honesty and dialogue with our elected leaders? __________________ I can sum up the clash of religion in one sentence: "My Invisible Friend is better than your Invisible Friend." Last edited by billege; 02-16-2006 at 04:45 PM..

02-16-2006, 04:43 PM	#164 (permalink)
clavus pow! Location: NorCal	speaking of TK... __________________ Ass, gas or grass. Nobody rides for free.

02-17-2006, 09:25 AM	#168 (permalink)
asaris Mad Philosopher Location: Washington, DC	Even if there is negligence involved (and it seems like there probably is), there needs to be a much higher level of negligence for it to be a criminal. Now, I dislike the Devil...er...Cheney as much as the next guy, but I just don't think what he did was criminal. Accidents happen. __________________ "Die Deutschen meinen, daß die Kraft sich in Härte und Grausamkeit offenbaren müsse, sie unterwerfen sich dann gerne und mit Bewunderung:[...]. Daß es Kraft giebt in der Milde und Stille, das glauben sie nicht leicht." "The Germans believe that power must reveal itself in hardness and cruelty and then submit themselves gladly and with admiration[...]. They do not believe readily that there is power in meekness and calm." -- Friedrich Nietzsche

02-17-2006, 02:25 PM	#170 (permalink)
ziadel Myrmidon Location: In the twilight and mist.	I havent read all of this, so I'll just chime in with my thoughts. Cheney pepperd some guy with bird-shot, and got away scott-free. Yeppers, it's an accident, and in this case wasn't really a very serious one. In my area alone this year, three hunters were shot by other hunters, with rifles. No one was arrested because, yeppers, say it with me now, it was an accident. __________________ Ron Paul '08 Vote for Freedom Go ahead and google Dr. Ron Paul. You'll like what you read.

02-16-2006, 09:33 PM	#166 (permalink)
msh58 Crazy	just wanted to say hi. ran out of twisted shotgun cheney jokes.

02-17-2006, 06:41 AM	#167 (permalink)
Rekna Junkie	I've been holding out posting in this thread but now i'm gong to post how I feel. Accidents happen and when an accident happens that does not involve neglegence the person who commited the accident does not deserve nor usually get punishment. However, there is an investigation into the accident to make sure no neglegence occured. Has this investegation happened? We know Cheney had a beer at lunch, maybe he had more than one. If he would have talked to the officers right away we would know if this was a problem or not. But him refusing to talk to them for 14 hours raises suspicion that perhaps he was a bit tipsy. But this is not what irks me. What pisses me off is how the story is being changed constantly. First it was a few pelets hit him from a ways away, then it was well he got hit in the face from a ways away, now it is well he took almost every pelet to the face meaning he wasn't a long ways away and instead was up close. Why don't they come out and tell the truth right away? Why spin the story and make up lies? If it is an accident nothing will happen the only reason to lie and cover things up is if you are guilty of something. What is Cheney trying to hide?

02-17-2006, 04:24 PM	#171 (permalink)
maximusveritas Winner	Actually, there were just 30 reported hunting accidents in Texas all last year. So it's pretty uncommon to begin with and when you throw in the fact that he is the Vice President of the United States and has admitted to drinking beer shortly before the accident and that he botched the handling of it afterward (to put it lightly), it's a pretty big story. Is it very important in the grand scheme of things? No, but neither is 99% of what the media normally reports on.

02-18-2006, 03:47 AM	#174 (permalink)
Poppinjay You had me at hello Location: DC/Coastal VA	It's kind of hard to believe that multiple DUI Cheney had one beer. __________________ I think the Apocalypse is happening all around us. We go on eating desserts and watching TV. I know I do. I wish we were more capable of sustained passion and sustained resistance. We should be screaming and what we do is gossip. -Lydia Millet

02-18-2006, 04:29 PM	#175 (permalink)
Superbelt This vexes me. I am terribly vexed. Location: Grantville, Pa	It should also be pointed out: This guy is on a cocktail of drugs, some of which (like aspirin) both heighten the drunken state and lengthen it. It very well could have been two beers that could impair for 4 hours. And I KNOW his 1.8 million dollar team of doctors that follow him around know this. It's very irresponsible and suspicious of both him and the police to have completely foregone a blood test. And I won't be satisfied that Cheney was sober until Wittington releases his bloodwork from the incident and it comes up negative. (And I know that one person having alcohol in their system doesn't mean another does, but considering the circumstances and deception involved, It's now become very relevant).

02-20-2006, 07:32 AM	#178 (permalink)
Ustwo Pissing in the cornflakes	Hahaha is the left so devoid of substance that they want to make a big deal out of a minor hunting accident? This would only be a fun story if it were a bipartisan hunting trip. __________________ Agents of the enemies who hold office in our own government, who attempt to eliminate our "freedoms" and our "right to know" are posting among us, I fear.....on this very forum. - host Obama - Know a Man by the friends he keeps.

02-22-2006, 09:06 AM	#180 (permalink)
Ustwo Pissing in the cornflakes	samcol that might be a nice bit of information if you had a valid source for it. No, prison planet and capital hill blue are anything but valid sources, I'd put more faith in the onion. __________________ Agents of the enemies who hold office in our own government, who attempt to eliminate our "freedoms" and our "right to know" are posting among us, I fear.....on this very forum. - host Obama - Know a Man by the friends he keeps.

02-22-2006, 09:17 AM	#181 (permalink)
Charlatan Getting it. Super Moderator Location: Lion City	I agree. Interesting story and it sure rings true to those who suspect there is more to the story, BUT it needs a link. Where did this story come from Samcol? __________________ "My hands are on fire. Hands are on fire. Ain't got no more time for all you charlatans and liars." - Old Man Luedecke

02-22-2006, 09:43 AM	#185 (permalink)
samcol Junkie Location: Indiana	I don't understand how speculating that alcohol was involved in this shooting is some kind of conspiracy theory. We have witnesses saying there was alcohol at the picnic, Cheney admits to drinking that day on fox news, Cheney has a history of alcohol abuse, the reporting and investigation of the shooting was convienetly delayed until the next day, the victim apologizes for getting shot by cheney, the whitehouse had no idea what was going on, and the police department was very apologetic as well. Not to mention you have a very experienced hunter making a very rookie mistake of breaking the line and nailing his friend at 30 yards. Now we have a story come out that claims the secret service may have made a report indicating cheney was drunk. EVERYTHING points to alcohol. The only conspiracy is Cheney keeping everything hush hush until the coast was clear. Sorry Ustwo, nothing about this hunting accident indicates that it was just an ordinary hunting accident.

02-22-2006, 02:50 PM	#195 (permalink)
stevo Rail Baron Location: Tallyfla	Roscoe's deputy is Captain Kirk no, really. __________________ "If I am such a genius why am I drunk, lost in the desert, with a bullet in my ass?" -Otto Mannkusser